Strategems of a Calvinist, Pentecostal, Mysticism Blamer
A Response to Daniel Azuma:
In my conversations with Daniel Azuma, he considers Watchman Nee to be plagued by eastern mysticism. One can't help notice Daniel is partly influenced also by Dennis McCallum's article mentioning Confucian. People take what others say and seem to role with it, but the lack of proof for such claims is what is disturbing. They explain themselves how the Word of God is somehow being not adhered to by Watchman Nee. Such are un-backed, unexplained, and unsubstantiated proclamations, including the attempt to say Nee's work was mostly inner based as would be found in eastern mysticism. But this is not true for Nee talked not just about the spirit, soul and body, but also God's Work and the Church and the Work and so many other practical matters and outworkings. I for one have no use for these non-reasonings by Daniel Azuma that are lame, so let us hand them back to him from which they came.
Azuma also holds that Watchman Nee was heavily influence by eastern style of authority and submission, yet he never shows it in Nee's writings. This is the common theme. This is also inaccurate, as he says the west is designed to have authority more to be thwarted. Though this is true, when you read Watchman Nee's writings closely (CFP), you find that Nee takes neither position and stays strictly according with the Scriptures as his guiding principle. You come to the conclusion men's ways were of no account and the Holy Spirit was fully in control of his life and writings. That is what I love about the Bible is that it stands apart, and Watchman Nee stood apart with it. This is why today people are still heavily drawn to Watchman Nee all over the world. I should know. I am getting hits on my website from every European country, many African countries, many Asia countries and almost every state in USA, province in Canada, and all the South American countries looking to read Watchman Nee's writings. It sounds like Daniel is damaged goods from Leeism as shown in his article he wrote about Jezebel and his reaction to his experience in Leeism.
Daniel endorses today's cult of pentecostalism version of tongues, and the reformed calvinistic god that “stacks the deck” who is a killer of free-will and pre-made some men for hell. Most calvinists get caught up on total depravity legalizing it, and thus having to legalize free-will in the calvin way. We are not totally deprave for the by the grace of free-will at our creation we were made in the image of God. Calvinists can never understand this. How unloving and unrighteous and unfaithful is this god of Daniel’s. This is shown by the movie Bruce Almighty, where Morgan Friedman says to Jim Carrie, “You have two rules being God. One, you can not tell anyone you are God. And two, you can not alter man's free-will”.
Also, as we know already and can prove in scripture (see the HNV, 2000 Bible, 1 Cor. 14), today's tongues is not of God but an unholy baptism and praying to a jesus the gibberish who could in fact be the coming false prophet attempting to turn this non-angelic and non-language into language. And maybe, this just may be that will be the role the Antichrist to convince many of its "religious rome" great harlot adherents of this 3rd wave movement and charismaticism. And they will take the mark that fulfills this idol this ability to make sense of their own gibberish false praying in the spirit, even creating a new world language and pawn it off as God's new angelic language. Yet the evil spirit in the Antichrist will destroy them for at least in name they are in Christ.
God will destroy all this said above when He returns. He knows the church will never become what it could be, and that much of Christendom today is simply judaized Christianity with physical buildings, written code of religious Rome that Daniel will endorse along with ecumenicalism. Notice the rationalizations he will employ below to circumvent and deflect the above stated facts that must come down. The conversation goes further, but it is more rationalizing and justifying by Daniel his strong held belief. Remember, God of the Bible is arminian. It should be noted true arminianism means OSAS, preservation of the Saints also, though not the calvinistic way.
From all that I have studied and discerned, calvinism falls apart on all 5 points. Pentecostal’s alteration of scripture for babble confuses the spirit and soul acting as sorcery or a medium, and in lowering the conscience in a man or woman. This is not of God, but work of the demon of Pentecostalism. Don't dismiss this statement so readily for I have seen this demon at work in those whom are afflicted in the realm of the world's fastest growing and fourth largest cult (Pentecostalism Charismatics), after RCC Charismatics, Agnostic (and Atheitst Charismatics) and Islamic Charismatics.
And, finally, Azuma’s attacks on Watchman Nee are Azuma’s inability to reach the Spirit, so he relegates against Nee by saying it is eastern mysticism that is his problem, though unsure of what? Nee lived in the east which does not mean he suffers eastern mysticism. Watchman Nee was arminian, non-pentecostal, and spirit-filled. These have been my findings in examining the writing below.
Azuma’s tactics are usually to say, you need to fellowship more in a physical building. I say this is deflection from his sins he harbors discussed above, and below. There is nothing wrong with fellowshipping in assembly, even encouraged, but when you start to slam it over others’ heads, saying “did you go to church on Sunday?”, “No?”; and then blames you on that basis, you know there is something wrong. This is what those in the Pentecostal movement will do, especially referring to their own assembly. And Calvinists do the say for their own assembly. Both are deadly wrong.
It is wrong to marry calvinism and arminianism, too. Don’t believe those who need to portray arminianism as work centric in yet another stratagem by calvinism to kill free-will. We are sovereign beings. God gave us our sovereignty. It is impossible to marry calvinism and arminianism as baptists do, as Daniel does, attempting to claim some aspects of both are right. I can prove otherwise. Arminianism is 100% true, calvinism is 100% false.
Likewise, as Daniel tries to do, it is wrong to marry Nee and Lee for they are diabolically different. Azuma was subjected to being God and mingling that Leeism tought, that he is still unable to shed as we see him discounting true spiritual life in another, that in and of Watchman Nee's devoted writings. Below you will find other errors by Daniel, such as, stop passing judgement (despite help provided to Daniel); claiming statements are rooted in Watchman Nee ahead of the Word (despite myself seeing Nee's words agreeing with the Word first); and saying pentecostalism is a subset of charismatics, to suggest they are not the same, and therefore, in some way that alleviates any possible problems (this is but a mere deflection for both are predecessors of the Third Wave Movement which depend heavily on the gibberish life; both are steep in the tower of babble medium to confuse what is of spirit and what is of soul damaging spiritual life).
Pentecostalism, the 1st wave movement, and charistmaticism, the 2nd wave movement, at their core, are a sugar-coated glossed-over lazyman's copout way of degrading true praying in the spirit that involves with that "still small voice". The Third Wave Movement of today is even worse, marrying and convoluting further the babbling life, marrying it to the RCC Charismatics – all of which is “religious rome”, the Great Harlot, and it will be destroyed. These are the things Daniel teaches. I believe he is in a cult of these things which are idols that in good conscience, knowing what I know, I could not be a a part of. May he have an ear to hear.
Troy Brooks
Daniel Writes:
I state on the board: "an interdenominational church with an evangelical foundation of doctrine, with some Christian Reformedinfluence, and with a significant charismatic element in the culture."
You reinterpret this to say "your church is reformed and charismatic." This is a case of "accent", the very first fallacy in moochie's posting. I did not say my church is "reformed" in its theology. I said it was "evangelical" in its theology. I then said it had "reformed influence". This is clearly a case of emphasis shift on your part. Now let me show you what "evangelical with reformed influence" really means.
Western evangelicalism has a tendency to be excessively Arminianist in its world-view. The reason is cultural. Westerners do not like the Calvinist idea of total depravity, because it goes against the capitalistic ideal that the individual can improve his condition through hard work and sound decisions, and the democratic ideal that a society can improve itself through popular vote. Unfortunately for the west, out of the five points of Calvinism, scripture is undoubtedly clearest on total depravity. "All have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God."
The evangelical church in the west has a tendency to downplay this element and instead often makes God out to be something to be manipulated to suit our ends. This tendency spawns such nasty theological errors as the prosperity gospel that you often see in large churches in North America. By asserting "reformed influence", therefore, I assert that my church (specifically the pastor), as well as I as an individual believer, reject the excessively Arminianist tendencies that the term "evangelical" often implies. In particular, the prosperity gospel really ticks me off, especially because I live in a very affluent area (right down the road from Microsoft) where it is rampant in other churches.
The problem with both Calvinism and Arminianism is both are true, but neither is true by itself. Often, when people argue for one or the other, they argue for it by itself, and such arguments don't stand to full counsel of God in scripture. They are only true taken together.
The proof is simple: you will know false teaching by the fruit. The fruit of pure Calvinism without free will is, as you put it, zombiism. The fruit of pure Arminianism without the sovereignty of God is a works-centric salvation and a rejection of the grace of God. Therefore, either both are true somehow (which is what I believe), or neither is true (which is the atheist view).
I did not say my church is "charismatic". I said it was "evangelical...with a significant charismatic element in the culture." Again, that is a shift in emphasis on your part. Furthermore, "charismatic" does not equal or imply "Pentecostal". Pentecostal is a subset of charismatic, and a small subset at that. The implication goes one way, but not the other; therefore you are affirming the consequent, another of moochie's fallacies. My church is far from Pentecostal. Its form of charismaticism is rooted more in the Korean Christian traditions, which actually have roots back to China (i.e. even some influence of Watchman
Nee).
It is similar in some ways to the Assemblies of God (which is why I mentioned AG in my posting), but with more of an emphasis on inner healing. Have you ever been to a charismatic Korean church? I didn't think so. Have you even been to an Assemblies of God church? You need to learn to stop passing judgment on things you know nothing about.